Prosecutor, during the trial in court, said that Martha used the car as a “murder weapon”.

It’s probably the first case in history of European forensics, that nobody has taken fingerprints from the “murder weapon”.

Sticking to the terminology of the prosecutor:Due to the lack of fingerprints taken from the car – the prosecutor doesn’t even knows who held this alleged “murder weapon”, who pulled the symbolic “trigger”.

Stating, that Martha’s car was used as a “murder weapon” is far from truth.

Why prosecutor’s statement, that Martha’s car was used as a “murder weapon” can’t be true?

Which argument convinces you? Select and vote (you can select more than one answer or provide your own).

Csaba didn't die in the car.

Csaba didn't get any injury from the car falling into water.

The cause of Csaba's death was drowning.

Csaba died outside the car.

The distance of the place where body was found from the site of accident is enormous, and no one knows in which moment Csaba died.

Garda didn't treat the car as a "murder weapon", so they didn't take the fingerprints from Martha's car.

Or maybe Garda’s actions were correct?
Fingerprints were not taken from the car, only water samples were taken: both from the river (site of accident) and from the sea (place where Csaba’s body was found).

One of the country’s best known prosecution and defence counsel, Brendan Grehan SC last year €92,997 from the DPP – Mr Grehan last year successfully prosecuted waitress Marta Herda (29) for the pier crash murder of Hungarian, Csaba Orsos.